High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Subhash Chander v. Chandigarh Administration & Anr - CWP-6447-2005  RD-P&H 12070 (6 December 2006)
CWP NO.6447 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: November 20,2006
Chandigarh Administration and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA
PRESENT: Shri J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for
Shri Ravinder Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for
Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
A service shop No.5, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh was leased out in favour of the petitioner vide a lease deed dated February 9, 1979 for a period of 5 years on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. Later on, a policy decision was taken by the Chandigarh Housing Board to allot the aforesaid service shop on lease hold basis to the allottee (the present petitioner) for a period of 99 years at the premium of Rs.86,000/-. Consequently, on November 13, 1986, the petitioner was issued a communication making the aforesaid offer and requiring the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount of premium in four equated instalments. The petitioner was required to send his acceptance within 30 days of the receipt of the communication. It appears that the petitioner did not make any payment of 25% of the amount of Pag
premium, nor did he clear the outstanding dues of rent of Rs.5,275/-.
In these circumstances, another communication was issued to him on June 28, 1991 informing the petitioner that the outstanding dues on account of arrears of rent had increased to Rs.17,925/- which the petitioner was required to clear within 15 days of the issue of the letter and further to send his acceptance of the offer of taking the shop on lease.
The petitioner claims that he deposited the amount of Rs.17,925/- on July 10,1991. He also claims that he had requested for issuance of allotment letter. No action seems to have been taken by the petitioner thereafter.
It further appears from the record that on July 30,2002, another communication was issued to the petitioner by Chandigarh Housing Board, this time intimating that the service shop in question was being offered to him on a lease hold basis for 99 years at a premium of Rs.8,07,000/- payable in six equated yearly instalements.
The petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the amount i.e.
Rs.2,01,750/- alongwith the ground rent of Rs.53,750/- for the period with effect from February 25, 1978 to February 24, 2003. The entire amount of outstanding dues was required to be deposited on or before August 31, 2002. No details have been given in the petition as to whether the petitioner had ever deposited the aforesaid amount or not.
The petitioner merely claims that he had been paying rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month as rent for some periods. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has now approached this Court claiming that the issuance of the fresh offer to the petitioner, raising the premium to Rs.8,07,000/- as wholly unjustified and that the shop Pag
in question was required to be offered to him at the original rate of Rs.86,000/-.
The present petition had come up for urgent motion hearing on April 28, 2005 when notice of motion was issued.
Dispossession of the petitioner was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court till further orders subject to deposit of the arrears due from the petitioner within 15 days. The respondents were required to indicate the arrears within three days from date of service of the aforesaid orders. It was also stipulated in the order that if the arrears so assessed are not deposited, the interim relief granted shall stand vacated automatically.
The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent Housing Board. A reply by way of short affidavit has been filed. In the aforesaid affidavit, it has been maintained that the interim orders were passed by this Court on April 28, 2005 but much earlier thereto i.e. April 7, 2005, since the petitioner had already vacated the premises in question and the booth was lying vacant, it was sealed by the Engineering Staff of the Board and the possession thereof had been taken.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the pleas raised by the petitioner and also the short reply filed by the respondent Board, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not pleaded the detailed facts with regard to the payments made by him with regard to the outstanding dues and the earlier payments made by him with regard to the rent, as communicated vide communication dated July 30,2002. As a matter of fact, the writ petition is totally silent on the aforesaid aspects. We Pag
further find that the possession of the shop in question had been taken from the petitioner on April 7, 2005 i.e. even prior to the issuance of interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioner has taken no steps to challenge the aforesaid dispossession.
In these circumstances, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to take his appropriate remedies challenging the aforesaid action of his dispossession, if so desired, in accordance with law, by giving all the requisite details.
A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
November 20, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.